>If you don’t agree with me, angry dudes will kick your ass

Anyone who’s seen Taxi Driver will remember Travis Bickle’s late night soliloquy on the “whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, [and] junkies” he saw every night driving his cab. “Someday,” he told himself, “a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.”

Of course — SPOILER ALERT! — what he really meant by “a real rain” coming was that he, Travis Bickle, would lose his shit and start shooting people.

Bickle wasn’t the only one to mix his predictions with a heaping helping of threat. Those who predict the end of the world at the hand of gods or men or some vague terrible cataclysm are all too often rooting (secretly or openly) for the civilization-destroyers they are ostensibly warning against. We saw this the other day amongst those MGTOWers who are now talking giddily about how complete economic collapse will serve to put foolish women and their “mangina” pals in their proper place.

And we see it again and again in the Men’s Rights movement, when MRAs sternly warn their detractors that if people don’t start listening to them, and pronto, the men of the world will rise up and, well, kick the shit out of everyone who opposes them. This is a warning only in the sense that a mafioso telling someone that, if he doesn’t pay what he owes, his legs just might possibly get broken, is a warning; by all reasonable definitions, it is a threat. As opposed to the leg-breaking, the threats of these MRAS aren’t very specific threats, but they’re threats of violence nonetheless.

I ran across one recent example of this sort of “warning” in the comments to Paul Elam’s piece on misandry — or at least what he labels misandry — in the Good Men Project’s package on the Men’s Rights movement. (My own contribution to the debate is here.) Here’s “Factory,” responding to another commenter who pointed out that some of his wording in an earlier comment had been awfully violent:

Who said I was interested in proving I wasn’t violent?

In point of fact, I continually warn people that if these issues are not MEANINGFULLY addressed, and soon, there will be a LOT of violence (see: Middle East) that we MRAs won’t be able to stop.

And frankly, if it comes to that, society (and all the women in it along with the men) flat out DESERVES whatever is coming.

Your hubris as a movement is causing a lot of men to be angry. You all vastly underestimate both the anger, and the ubiquitous nature of this anger.

We MRAs do nothing except act as weather vane and map. That’s why we have no central authority, or funding, or organization of any kind. We are average guys mad enough to stand up like we do. There are a LOT more guys that are just as mad, but content to let others lead.

And there are a growing number of men that take Feminist (and ‘official’) dismissal of mens issues as indication that ONLY violent revolution will lead to change.

And speaking for myself, if it ever comes to violence, I will stand aside, and feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done…but I won’t lift a FINGER to stop it.

Just like people like you are doing right now.

Notice the not-so-subtle, and rather thoroughly bungled, rhetorical sleight of hand here. Factory paints the violence as something he won’t indulge in (but won’t stop) — forgetting that in the very first sentence he admitted that he was himself violent. He refers to MRAs as little more than a “weather vane” for male emotion — but somehow later in the paragraph they are leading things. He claims that he will “feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done,” but this is only after stating in no uncertain terms that he thinks “society … flat out DESERVES whatever is coming.”

So, yeah, this is as much a “warning” as the hypothetical mafioso’s reference to broken legs.

On his own site, Elam has been much more frankly threatening. Recently, telling off one commenter who had the temerity to actually question the gospel according to Elam, he finished off a long rant about male anger with this:

I would not suggest that treating half the population, the stronger half at that, with too much continuing disregard is a very good idea.

Thinking they will never come out swinging is a stupid, stupid way to go.

This kind of logic might best be called the Appeal to an Ass-kicking. The structure of this argument could be broken down as follows:

1) Source A says that p is true2) If you don’t agree that p is true, Source A (or perhaps some other dudes) will do you bodily harm.3) Therefore, you’d better fucking agree that p is true.

This is probably the oldest and crudest form of logic there is, and one that is popular amongst many animals as well. (My cat is a master of it, at least when p = “you will give me treats now.”)

Perhaps the best way to respond to it is the way that the commenter calling herself fannie responded to Factory on the Good Men Project:

You’re arguing that men are going to be so angry they’re not going to be able to control their rage and are therefore going to start inflicting mass amounts of violence upon others.

I’m not sure a feminist could be more defamatory of men than you are being.

MRAs sure are misandrist.

I, and feminists like me, think men are better than that.

Me too.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About David Futrelle

I run the blog We Hunted the Mammoth, which tracks (and mocks) online misogyny.
My writing has appeared in a wide variety of places, including Salon, Time.com, the Washington Post, the New York Times Book Review and Money magazine.
I like cats.

>As for going Galt, I've been doing so since 2009. I earn about half my income under the table and so I pay no tax on it, I am not reproducing and thereby not providing more fodder for the system, and I have modified my consumer behavior to deprive western corporations of as much of my money as possible. In a previous thread, you said you have a real job, at an office and everything. (I have to admit I remember this because you bragged about enjoying a refreshing Pepsi on your break, which I found strangely charming.) Why don't you quit it? Wouldn't that make a bolder statement than doing occasional freelance work, not having kids, and buying shoes from Hong Kong sweatshops? Sheesh, I do all those things and I'm not even trying to bring down the government. I do pay my taxes, though.Look, let's move out of the realm of ego-stroking Randian fantasy for a moment. Successful boycotts require three things: a large committed base, a specific target, and a specific message. The classic example is the Montgomery bus boycott. The organizers were able to get a large chunk of the city's population organized against a single, specific target: a bus company that segregated black passengers. By boycotting the company, they hurt it financially while sending a clear, prepared message to the public: segregation is unfair, and African-Americans would no longer tolerate it at the businesses they patronized.What you've got is twelve guys on the Internet (and, yes, a million billion imaginary men who will totally join you once they hear your inspiring message) threatening to boycott EVERYTHING IN THE ENTIRETY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION because, um, WOMEN! And then not actually boycotting anything.I feel kind of dumb wasting space explaining these basic concepts, but there are people of all political stripes who think "boycotting" something by just personally avoiding it will accomplish stuff, so I might as well try to clear that up. I mean, if you want to claim you're cheating on your taxes as a courageous if convoluted move to stick it to the Woman, I guess that's you're prerogative. I'm just trying to explain why people here are chuckling indulgently at your threats instead of shaking in our hopefully non-sweatshop-made boots.

>OK, Cold, so your argument does in fact come down to Might Makes Right. I guess there's really nothing more to be said, then, since argument and ideas are therefore obsolete. I will refrain from engaging with you in the future and instead concentrate my efforts on those who are amenable to reason, or at least fun to mock. Sadly, you are neither.

>Sometimes I wonder if the 'going Galt' idea is just sour grapes or a coping mechanism for being unemployed/underemployed. "I COULD find a better job if I wanted to, but I'm not because fuck women. But seriously, I could totes get an awesome job and the economy is going to be ruined because not only am I not working, I'm also growing my own food, sewing my own clothes and bartering carpentry for my neighbor's biodiesel."

>As an aside, Vagrant, you've long since proven you're not a troll–at least to my satisfaction. Continuing to reference triplanetary's accusation long after most of us would have otherwise forgotten about it seems a bit, well, churlish (though I appreciate its place in the present context). I mean that in all friendliness, as I usually find your comments to be argued in good faith, even if I don't always agree. Just sayin'. FWIW, I completely agree that most cops wouldn't touch the coming MRA Takeover of the World without a long nightstick. Cops like their jobs, generally speaking; many of them even like women in their lives. The idea that they would put that all at risk for the MRA bill of goods is a bit far-fetched. They are too invested in the status quo, and the current system still probably has too much–oh, I don't know–legitimacy in their eyes to warrant violent overthrow. Which is not to say that individual police officers might not support the MRA agenda or their political aims.But, as I suppose the MRAs would say, "tomorrow the world."

>Cold, a couple of things:1) Religion: There are Christian patriarchs too. I have generally avoided writing about religion. I may write more about it in the future. Generally speaking, those who advocate traditionalist religion do it in a way that is not as completely batshit, and thus entertaining, as MRAs and, especially, MGTOWs. 2) So you're a tax cheat? Setting aside for the moment your seekret plan to bring down the world economy by being a tax cheat, the practical effect of you not paying taxes means that you are taking advantage of govt. services (roads, fire departments, safe food and water, national defense, etc etc) without paying for them. Doesn't that make you a leech?

>walkertall said… "Its very telling, isn’t it, that MRAs and other cowards, always resort to threats of violence, rape, murder, etc., and feminists don’t?"They don't, correct? Here's the first post:Alex_P said… "And what makes them think that men would take their side? I'm a weight-lifting feminist male, and chances are good I could kick the shit out of these shut-ins."

>1) Religion: There are Christian patriarchs too. I have generally avoided writing about religion. I may write more about it in the future. Generally speaking, those who advocate traditionalist religion do it in a way that is not as completely batshit, and thus entertaining, as MRAs and, especially, MGTOWs.Like Vision Forum and the Quiverful movement? Though, in my opinion, they ARE completely batshit, they're not as entertaining as MGTOWs.

>@ColdThis economic collapse you hope to bring about by you and all of your friends "going Galt" is not what you think it is going to be. Let me give you some insight, oh urban dwelling, apartment person.Economy collapses, militia is called out, chaos in the streets. Three things happen at once — power goes off, phone lines go out, roads are blocked by people trying to leave the city. Gasoline and water are quickly going to dry up when people try to get ahead of looters.And that is only the beginning. How many of your Galt going friends knows basic first aid and has an appropriate first aid kit? How many maintain a garden? Somewhere to live with access to fresh running water and animal life?How many of these friends live in the country? How far away are they? Can you walk there? Do you have a go bag in you are evacuated? In case you have to evacuate yourself? What is in your go bag? Do you have a good map? Can you use a map and compass? Don't tell me your big plan is to sit in your apartment drinking energy drink and WOW. That is not reality. Reality says that you are going to very quickly need to make sure you have the necessities of life.Can you do that?

>The hippies who decided to go farm had a very difficult time doing so because so few of them had done anything remotely resembling farming.After a long period of time, they were able to start producing good quality food but it was not as simple as they assume it is.

>walkertall said…"Its very telling, isn’t it, that MRAs and other cowards, always resort to threats of violence, rape, murder, etc., and feminists don’t?"They don't, correct? Here's the first post:Alex_P said…"And what makes them think that men would take their side? I'm a weight-lifting feminist male, and chances are good I could kick the shit out of these shut-ins." Promising to defend yourself is very different from threatening violence if you don't get your way (not you specifically). Alex wasn't threatening violence to achieve a political goal, but rather stating his ability to respond with violence if attacked with violence. There's a big difference.

>Pam, yeah Vision Forum and the Quiverful movement are pretty out there, but my limited forays into that whole area haven't netted me much in the way of blatant, over-the-top misogyny. If you have any suggestions of places to look, let me know. It's something I will continue to look into, though I may not end up posting about it for awhile.

>Elizabeth, exactly. Back in my younger days I was sort of fascinated by communes (I later realized I'm really not a commune person at heart). I remember reading something about the psychologist BF Skinner visiting a commune based on his ideas (which sounds a lot scarier to me now than it did at the time). He was sort of bemused by it, and wondered why all the college-educated commune members had decided to forgo jobs they were well-suited for to take up farming, which they didn't know jack shit about.

>Hah, hah, thanks, Captain Bathrobe. I know, I'm just needling cold, lol.In any case, back to what he said, in response to this:Why should anyone ever take the side of anyone other than the ruling class? Hmm, maybe because the ruling class makes someone's life miserable, while the underdog is fighting for equality and a fair shake in life?But as you said yourself, might makes right, doesn't it? And since right now the feminists and their government have the preponderance of military power (a situation which is unlikely to change, as Bathrobe pointed out), they have the might, so they're right, which means the "oppressed" men out there deserve their subservient lot. Not only that, but the ruling class can treat "underdogs" who suck up to it quite well–for instance, prosecutors can make lots of money sending innocent men to jail on false charges of rape, people who work in media can make a lot of money off negative depictions of men (the popularity of characters like Homer Simpson attests to this), and so on. If might really did make right, one would expect the weaker underdog to either just roll over for the "mightier" feminists or try to make as much money as he could off of them rather than stand up for himself.Still, in any case, perhaps all this is merely addressing a misunderstanding–though I don't think you quoted my original post directly, looking at your comments you seem to be referring to what I said about "legitimacy." Perhaps that was a poor/confusing choice of words on my part. How to make it more clear…hmm. How's this: An appeal to force, at least from people in a position of weakness does not make the stronger party more likely to accede to their demands. We didn't accede to the demands of the KKK, various Neo-Nazi organizations, or a wide variety of other fanatical hate groups whose murders, bombings, and other acts of violence merely resulted in their getting crushed. All these groups told us, "do X or we'll fucking kill you" (where X was "deny non-whites their rights" or something similar). In response, we essentially fucking killed them. When you tell the feminists and their government "do X or we'll fucking kill you," what makes you think they won't simply ignore your demands and crush you like they did the KKK?

>@David, it's slightly off topic, but if you want info about Vision Forum and the Quiverful movement that includes blatant examples of misogyny, please contact me. I grew up in fundamentalist Christianity and have done extensive research into the movement. I'd planned to eventually run a series about it on my own blog but I would really happy be work with anyone on this topic.

>"Promising to defend yourself is very different from threatening violence if you don't get your way (not you specifically)."—CBWhat makes you think that's what I was saying—just defending himself? Funny.

>" Both of those arguments use the same logical structure and are therefore equally legitimate. Claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest. March 11, 2011 2:01 AM "No, because the unstated premiss is P: I have the right to tell you what to do, based on laws given to me to uphold by our legally elected government.In the case of the police, it is generally true. In the case of MRAs, it is decidedly not.

>@David,Although I think that they are completely batshit, they don't engage in the same type of 'so off-the-wall that it's f'ing hilarious' misogyny that you showcase on this blog; in fact, I do not find them entertaining at all.If you are serious about looking further into the misogyny and extreme male supremacist ideology of that movement and perhaps showcasing it, I would recommend writing about it in a different venue.I rarely refer to my religious beliefs in my comments, but it was my research into varying Christian beliefs about men's and women's "ordained" roles that led to my discovery of the MRM and MRAs.@anthonybsusan,Visited your blog after reading your comment, and as a Christian (converted from Buddhism) feminist, I am interested in what you have to say and will continue to visit your blog as time permits.

>wytch wrote:"Promising to defend yourself is very different from threatening violence if you don't get your way (not you specifically)."—CBWhat makes you think that's what I was saying—just defending himself? Funny. Actually, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I believe that Alex was stating his intention to fight back if attacked, which makes sense in context. You were attempting to conflate that statement with MRA threats of violence if they don't get their way in terms of…well, whatever they it is they want. Threatening violence to achieve political or social aims is generally considered a form a terrorism, whereas threatening violence if personally, physically attacked is generally not.

>@Captain BathrobeExactly. I don't advocate or perform violence. I do believe in self-defense, though. I wouldn't kill you just because you're spouting inanities, but I would use any means necessary to incapacitate them if they tried to hurt my mom. I am responding to a threat of violence by scoffing. I strongly doubt these Internet trolls form the strongest part of the population, and they shouldn't assume that men would ever join in their supposed revolution.Also, I think it's spelled "Witchfynde", not "Wytchfinde". I'm going by band names.

>walkershort"Men are better than the overly-emotional, irrational, violent, hate-mongering douchebags that Elam et al think we all are. That MRAs clearly don’t think so is very tragic; that they blame feminists for that is cowardice and an inability to be acountable for their own lives and behavior. I’m glad I encountered them at such a low point in my life. I’m even more glad I saw through them and didn’t become one of them."Bet your also glad your new girlfriend is reading this ain't ya?

>jupiter9"I have the right to tell you what to do, based on laws given to me to uphold by our legally elected government."You have the right to have your 'make me feew eeemportant button pushed' by using the law as an excuse to boss people around.Men ignore you all da time?Aww poor wittle baby don't get no attention!

>"And since right now the feminists and their government have the preponderance of military power"Um, is this not a line pregnant with false assumption? The last I saw the feminists do not own or control the government. Rather, women have won some fragile and incomplete concessions over issues such as discrimination. Insofar that those concessions are backed by the apparatus of law, women have some degree of protection. But to frame this as 'feminists and their government, backed by a preponderance of military power' sounds as absurd as the formulation 'muslims and their government' when talking about religious discrimination, or 'the gays and their government' when it comes to the repeal of DADT.Or does this not simply become a lame way of saying 'a government of the people', the 'people' in this instance including feminists, as well as MRAs?

>Well, percyprune, it's a common MRA meme (I'm not sure whether or not Cold subscribes to it; I assume he does) that the US government (as well as any 'big government' in general) is, if not "anti-male" and "pro-feminist," at least not working for his bests interests and, if not his enemy, at least not his friend. The "feminists and their government" line was just playing off that–if one really does believe, as many MRAs do, that the feminists have that much political power, then they, with the army and cops at their disposal, are the "mighty" ones if might makes right. :p

>"Also, I think it's spelled "Witchfynde", not "Wytchfinde". I'm going by band names."—AlexActually, you are correct if you are referring to the British band. Mine is simply a play on spelling. "Cloak and Dagger" is a good album, btw. If you like that sort of thing. "I don't advocate or perform violence. I do believe in self-defense, though. I wouldn't kill you just because you're spouting inanities, but I would use any means necessary to incapacitate them if they tried to hurt my mom."I understand that, so we are in agreement here."I strongly doubt these Internet trolls form the strongest part of the population, and they shouldn't assume that men would ever join in their supposed revolution."You underestimate the movement (which is not surprising considering the nature of this blog), but my 2 cents is thus: I honestly think men don't even need to know about MGTOW as a train of thought to have its influence spread. I read blurbs online and talk to men in person about how they are being mistreated and how it effects them personally, socially, and even politically and legally some times. They may not have the depth as MGTOW blogs, but they know on some level they are getting the run around even if they don't know the ingrained misandry in this culture. I also think that these men will create change over time, reactionary or not, and don't have to claim to be MRAs but have things in common with the basic themes.Captain Bathrobe, if you are reading this, it should answer a couple of things. I got cut off as a posted a response to you and was multi-tasking in a way—not the best thing to do before hurrying before work.

>How to treat an mra like a second class citizen(in their eyes)—-women:don't be a house servant fuck toy and let them have total control over your life. Men:hold the belief that women should have some rights.

>This isn't quite what you're thinking of when it comes to "angry dudes will kick your ass", but it's close. Be sure to scroll down for all the comments about how fathers should kick the asses of guys who have sex with their daughters. If that's not bad enough the original comment was talking about an ADULT woman having sex.The worst part is that a lot of the commentors that want fathers to beat up guys who have sex with their adult daughters are women. I guess they view themselves as their husbands' property. So it's no surprise that they view adult women as their fathers' property until they get married and become their husbands' property.This is "angry father dudes will kick your ass".

>Wow, Steve, that link started off strange and then took a turn into Bizarre Tautology Theatre. Who knew that if, as an adult woman, you have sex, you are "trashing your father's genetic legacy" and wasting all that money he spent sending you to school?

>I really have little interest into responding to comments that attribute belief to me that I don't actually hold("fuck women" for example) or that refute points that I never even made("I am an authority on economics" for example). Same for ones that accuse me of hypocrisy without providing evidence. If you can't be bothered to carefully read what I write before responding, or can't be bothered to do copy/paste a few relevant quotes from me to back up a charge of hypocrisy, then I probably can't be bothered to respond.

>@thevagrantsvoice"Just needling" someone with no intention of actually making a point is considered to be trolling, as is the use of intentional logical fallacies. Unless you are so ignorant that you had no idea that the "right" in "might makes right" refers to political/legal rights(the right to rule in particular) and not to any kind of moral sense of "right", you deliberately committed the fallacy of equivocation for laughs and that makes you a troll by definition. I'm just going to ignore if you're not going to bother actually saying anything of substance.

>No, because the unstated premiss isP: I have the right to tell you what to do, based on laws given to me to uphold by our legally elected government.This is what I mean when I talk about using lofty, subjective ideals to dress up the "might makes right" argument. That unstated premise has no impact on the power of the argument unless the recipient recognizes that claim to legitimacy, and if everyone recognized the claim then we wouldn't even need law enforcement.OK, Cold, so your argument does in fact come down to Might Makes Right. I guess there's really nothing more to be said, then, since argument and ideas are therefore obsolete. I will refrain from engaging with you in the future and instead concentrate my efforts on those who are amenable to reason, or at least fun to mock. Sadly, you are neither.Translation: Waaah! How dare you not regard my subjective ideas of morality and legitimacy as objective truths! Don't you know that without those, I am unable to establish any meaningful difference between the violent threats made by the government on behalf of feminists and the violent threats made by some revolution-minded MRAs? You're not being anenable to reason if you don't recognize me as a moral authority! Screw you, Cold, I'm taking my ball and going home!

>the practical effect of you not paying taxes means that you are taking advantage of govt. services (roads, fire departments, safe food and water, national defense, etc etc) without paying for them. Doesn't that make you a leech?So what if it does? Am I supposed to feel a sense of investment in a society that treats me as a disposable, second-class citizen because I don't have a vagina?

>“Vision Forum and the Quiverful movement are pretty out there, but my limited forays into that whole area haven't netted me much in the way of blatant, over-the-top misogyny”The brand of religion these movements are based on are blatantly over-the-top misogynistic. “Bet your also glad your new girlfriend is reading this ain't ya?”She introduced me to this site. See, I do this thing called "talking to her". She knows all about my misguided foray into the He-Man Womun Haterz Klub. Thanks for playing. “Am I supposed to feel a sense of investment in a society that treats me as a disposable, second-class citizen because I don't have a vagina?”Wow. Cold, have you ever considered psychotherapy? There’s got to be a sufficiently manly male therapist you can go see to help you with these intense delusions you’re having. Or is therapy also a feminist conspiracy?

>@Elizabeth, on the Revolutionary War issue, many of the soliders fighting for the British were not British, but rather paid German mercenaries. The exact number of Hessian mercenaries is disputed, but it is generally put somewhere between 16 and 30 thousand. The revolutionary war was not actually very popular in England, where majority sentiment tended towards reconciliation and concession of demands, but a tiny but powerful rich minority opposed it. This made recruitment of actual British soliders rather difficult, as the House of Commons was not playing along well. So, killing the "British" military prisoners often would have just meant slaughtering a bunch of random Germans rather than actual British loyalists. Not inconsiderable amounts of Hessians defected and remained in the US after the end of the war and brought their families over to live with them. This large, often solely or primarily German speaking, population was a source of a lot of political and ethocentric angest in early America. There were isolated incidences of murders of civilian loyalists. However, these were relatively rare and would not be aptly described as "wholesale slaughter".On another note, I fail to see why I should be concerned about this panic about the "fall of western civilization"!!! First of all, wouldn't that leave me with all of the other civilizations, such as Eastern or Indigenous ones? I live in an area that used to be ruled by the Iroquois, I fail to see why women should think such a system would be to their loss rather than their benefit. White supremicist patriarchy holds little appeal to me. But what the MRA seperatists here are advocating is not actually letting the rest of us free of colonial patriarchy and moving out of our socieites, but rather leaching on our societies as much as possible while trying to impose colonial patriarchy as much as possible. On that note, the fact that EWME invokes slavery, claiming all women are the masters and all (especially white) men the slaves (while ignoring the fact that black women and children picked cotton as well) and then turns right around and fearmongers about the power of black and brown men should win some sort of irony award.

>Unless you are so ignorant that you had no idea that the "right" in "might makes right" refers to political/legal rights(the right to rule in particular) and not to any kind of moral sense of "right",The problem is, my point applies to this as well. The feminists, in your view, are "ruling" because they're backed up by the guns to do so and that will likely remain the case for the foreseeable future. They have the right to rule and kick you around because they have the power, and as I mentioned above, even "second-class citizens" can profit more by sucking up to the rulers than opposing them.Still, though, given how you've already ignored much of what I've said (still waiting for a response to my question of why we should regard MRAs like you much differently than groups like the KKK), I suppose if you simply ignore me entirely it will be neither unexpected nor that much of a loss. Now, if you could only ignore everyone else and Go Your Own Way back to whichever MRA/MGTOW site you originally came from rather than bother with the hoi polloi like us, so mired in our logical fallacies and unable to grok your superior intellect, that would be even better. Please leave, we're not worthy of your presence :'(Still, so long as our host tolerates, it's not as if we can do anything about it–his blog, not ours. Thus, we'll be relying on you to exercise your better judgment and leave this moteley collection of trolls, ignoramii, and people who "don't say anything substantive" to stew in our own misfortune. :'(

>MGTOW ought to expand their acronym to MELIGNATOW:Men Endlessly Lobbing Invective Going Not Actually Their Own Way.Best part is the name honors a very clever misogynist, one who killed several women and got off on technicalities.

>Correction: Mel Ignatow, of Louisville, KY, only killed one woman but got off on lack of evidence.His last laugh: he'd kept that evidence as a cherished memento – hidden in his house, which he sold after his acquittal, to see it discovered and made public. Musta hated that biatch. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow